[nikcub]

> It's been fascinating to watch this space rediscover the reasons that the regulations were created in the first place.

I've found that ICO's are almost identical to OTC pump and dumps - they're much less sophisticated versions of the same thing

Opportunities that are marketed as investments first, products second. Website homepages that resemble the "investors" section of ordinary website with no actual "product" presence. Vague products in markets that are easy to obfuscate or fake. Affiliations that can be purchased. High profile board members or investors who can be purchased. Social media footprint where people talking about the stock outnumber customers, etc.

If you've spent any time in Yahoo! message boards or Seeking Alpha looking at the hundreds of reverse-IPO's and pink sheet startups you'll recognize all of the same scams (and some of the same names! cough McAfee cough-cough)

[beager]

This is why the hype typhoon of ICOs makes no sense on HN. If you did a "Show HN" with a site that was all pedigree and vagaries, no product, it would get torn to shreds. But by and large, ICO coverage seems breathless and overblown.

It's nice to see the SEC take a more active role though. Maybe they can be a decent enough filter where the ICO world can grow enough trust to be a legitimate vehicle for investing.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I'm only a casual observer of the financial realm, and thusly hadn't heard of a reverse-IPO.

A reverse takeover or reverse merger takeover (reverse IPO) is the acquisition of a public company by a private company so that the private company can bypass the lengthy and complex process of going public.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_takeover